6 ms·

I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the rep

I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to be flattering, the PR people will obviously high-five themselves. When some part of the story is negative, the PR people will be disappointed and try to get the reporter to see their side. See this article [1] from Mark Leibovich for an NYT reporter's account of one of the issues addressed in your links. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...

69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
You would think people on hn would have internet access. Is there some sort of print & mail forwarding system I am unaware of? I haven't heard of any wikileaks censorship at least not in the US. Are there people on hn who have internet access, but are still in denial? Half of these comments sound so bizarre. Trolling?
throwaway_nyt 10y ago
You have very conveniently sweept it under normal PR behavior. And even used NYtimes link to debunk it all. Lovely. Nytimes pandered Iraq war hard to US masses, never believing in any political position they push. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd Mark Leibovich giving veto power on a clinton piece. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA9fBAI https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA9fBAI https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9416#efmATHAXN https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9416#efmATHAXN I have left out all the normal questions which journalists ask. Donna Brazile leaking CNN questions:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027 DNC directing questions to Wolf Blitzer to ask to Donald/Cruz/Fiorina:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25284 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25284 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23570 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23570 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 NBC news first draft:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26390 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26390 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42191 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42191 (Don't know what he/she is talking about here) Newsweek story:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/41392 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/41392 DNC Chairman having meeting with MSNBC predisent:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867 Sharing story before sharing with editor:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 Jake Tapper questions:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 Journalists have been giving the campaign full stories before being published, will Clinton team not push back on any negative aspects? There are 2 3 other emails; one from a batch released a month ago and one around last week. Form your own opinions if they are journalists asking for a genuine access, or... Sorry for bad formatting...
- _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
  > Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 Stopped reading there. This is why we need journalism. People like you are unable to interpret the content of these emails. He is subscribed to the NYtimes First Draft blog [1]. Everyone with an NYTimes subscription can get the newsletter. As you can also tell by the sender nytdirect@nytimes.com [2]This isn't an actual first draft. Stop spreading misinformation and take your bs back to reddit. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/21/today-in-politics-rivals-can-no-longer-ignore-donald-trumps-long-shadow/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/21/today... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/faq/aboutsiteqa17.html http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/faq/aboutsiteqa17.ht...
  - throwaway_nyt 10y ago
    Good thing, atleast you read this one before ignoring:- https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Don't give me your attitude. I got one wrong and admit the mistake on that one. That does not really refute any other emails.
    - _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
      > Don't give me your attitude. You are right. I apologize for the dismissive tone of my comment.
    - Angostura 10y ago
      The trouble is, when you get the first one wrong, it doesn't encourage people to take the time to read the rest.
    - croon 10y ago
      > https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd Mark Leibovich giving veto power on a clinton piece. You got the second one wrong as well, so I stopped there instead. He was giving veto on what to use on off-the-record questions, which I hope you agree, is a very good practice. Someone else can deal with your third, and fourth... But if you want apples to apples, it's unfortunate that you can't dig through Trumps emails [1]. It's sad that politics is no longer about politics. [1] http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120 http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-...
briandear 10y ago
However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. There's lots of evidence that reporters colluded with the Clinton campaign. That's not 'negotiating access.' Reporters ethically are bound to not give sources the ability to approve stories. Otherwise those stories might as well be press releases. I went to journalism school and giving sources prior-review over a story is about as unethical as it gets. Getting access to a source doesn't mean softballing everything for the benefit of the source. With the email scandal for instance, those stories could be written with or without cooperation from Clinton -- you simply say: we're running this story, care to respond? If they are 'mad' at you, they are the ones that miss out on getting their side represented. Reporters ought not be 'negotiating' anything. We have a story, we're going to run it; if you want to respond, here's your chance, if you don't want to respond, we can report that as well. Journalists in many organizations have sold themselves out. It's no surprise that most of them are Clinton supporters. The days of Walter Cronkite objectivity have seemingly passed. The media colluded against Sanders not even to mention all of the Republican candidates.
- 07d046 10y ago
  > email scandal On this topic, I find it mildly amusing that, for all the accusations of bias, it was actually the New York Times that broke the story of Clinton's private email server. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
  - throwaway_nyt 10y ago
    Some reporters can break stories too, and the same newspaper can have cronies too. There is a good email in wikileaks where Jake Tapper is pushing back against a slanderous story published against him. Made me respect him for that. There is also another one, where a buzzfeed reporter is introducing a collegue cordially and professionally.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    It would be a strange newspaper business indeed that sat quietly on a story like that.
rayiner 10y ago
> I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. Imagine if judges gave litigants pre-publication copies of opinions.
- _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
  Vogel isn't a judge though. He is a journalist. Was the Clinton campaign able to change the article in any meaningful way?
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Imagine if judges had no power to compel cooperation or even communication at all. They might have to work in a different way. Journalists would work very differently if they could use armed cops to force sources to come talk to them and tell the truth.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
totalZero 10y ago
If you were correct, then the spin would be spinning the other direction from time to time. Doesn't seem like that has happened with the Times. If the bias is because they are systematically getting information from one side of the story, then it's still bad journalism.

69mlgsniperdad 10y ago

You would think people on hn would have internet access. Is there some sort of print & mail forwarding system I am unaware of? I haven't heard of any wikileaks censorship at least not in the US. Are there people on hn who have internet access, but are still in denial? Half of these comments sound so bizarre. Trolling?

throwaway_nyt 10y ago

You have very conveniently sweept it under normal PR behavior. And even used NYtimes link to debunk it all. Lovely. Nytimes pandered Iraq war hard to US masses, never believing in any political position they push. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd Mark Leibovich giving veto power on a clinton piece. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA9fBAI https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA9fBAI https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9416#efmATHAXN https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9416#efmATHAXN I have left out all the normal questions which journalists ask. Donna Brazile leaking CNN questions:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027 DNC directing questions to Wolf Blitzer to ask to Donald/Cruz/Fiorina:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25284 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25284 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23570 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23570 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 NBC news first draft:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26390 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/26390 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42191 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42191 (Don't know what he/she is talking about here) Newsweek story:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/41392 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/41392 DNC Chairman having meeting with MSNBC predisent:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867 Sharing story before sharing with editor:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808 Jake Tapper questions:- https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 Journalists have been giving the campaign full stories before being published, will Clinton team not push back on any negative aspects? There are 2 3 other emails; one from a batch released a month ago and one around last week. Form your own opinions if they are journalists asking for a genuine access, or... Sorry for bad formatting...

_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
> Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 Stopped reading there. This is why we need journalism. People like you are unable to interpret the content of these emails. He is subscribed to the NYtimes First Draft blog [1]. Everyone with an NYTimes subscription can get the newsletter. As you can also tell by the sender nytdirect@nytimes.com [2]This isn't an actual first draft. Stop spreading misinformation and take your bs back to reddit. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/21/today-in-politics-rivals-can-no-longer-ignore-donald-trumps-long-shadow/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/21/today... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/faq/aboutsiteqa17.html http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/faq/aboutsiteqa17.ht...
- throwaway_nyt 10y ago
  Good thing, atleast you read this one before ignoring:- https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/ https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Don't give me your attitude. I got one wrong and admit the mistake on that one. That does not really refute any other emails.
  - _fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
    > Don't give me your attitude. You are right. I apologize for the dismissive tone of my comment.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    The trouble is, when you get the first one wrong, it doesn't encourage people to take the time to read the rest.
  - croon 10y ago
    > https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDVTDWd Mark Leibovich giving veto power on a clinton piece. You got the second one wrong as well, so I stopped there instead. He was giving veto on what to use on off-the-record questions, which I hope you agree, is a very good practice. Someone else can deal with your third, and fourth... But if you want apples to apples, it's unfortunate that you can't dig through Trumps emails [1]. It's sad that politics is no longer about politics. [1] http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120 http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-...

briandear 10y ago

However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. There's lots of evidence that reporters colluded with the Clinton campaign. That's not 'negotiating access.' Reporters ethically are bound to not give sources the ability to approve stories. Otherwise those stories might as well be press releases. I went to journalism school and giving sources prior-review over a story is about as unethical as it gets. Getting access to a source doesn't mean softballing everything for the benefit of the source. With the email scandal for instance, those stories could be written with or without cooperation from Clinton -- you simply say: we're running this story, care to respond? If they are 'mad' at you, they are the ones that miss out on getting their side represented. Reporters ought not be 'negotiating' anything. We have a story, we're going to run it; if you want to respond, here's your chance, if you don't want to respond, we can report that as well. Journalists in many organizations have sold themselves out. It's no surprise that most of them are Clinton supporters. The days of Walter Cronkite objectivity have seemingly passed. The media colluded against Sanders not even to mention all of the Republican candidates.

07d046 10y ago
> email scandal On this topic, I find it mildly amusing that, for all the accusations of bias, it was actually the New York Times that broke the story of Clinton's private email server. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
- throwaway_nyt 10y ago
  Some reporters can break stories too, and the same newspaper can have cronies too. There is a good email in wikileaks where Jake Tapper is pushing back against a slanderous story published against him. Made me respect him for that. There is also another one, where a buzzfeed reporter is introducing a collegue cordially and professionally.
- vixen99 10y ago
  It would be a strange newspaper business indeed that sat quietly on a story like that.

rayiner 10y ago

> I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. Imagine if judges gave litigants pre-publication copies of opinions.

_fizz_buzz_ 10y ago
Vogel isn't a judge though. He is a journalist. Was the Clinton campaign able to change the article in any meaningful way?
snowwrestler 10y ago
Imagine if judges had no power to compel cooperation or even communication at all. They might have to work in a different way. Journalists would work very differently if they could use armed cops to force sources to come talk to them and tell the truth.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

totalZero 10y ago

If you were correct, then the spin would be spinning the other direction from time to time. Doesn't seem like that has happened with the Times. If the bias is because they are systematically getting information from one side of the story, then it's still bad journalism.